Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 18.01.2006 although the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur passed order for bail under Section 439, CrPC in connection with FIR No. 03/2006 P.S. Gogunda (Udaipur) registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC but onerous condition has been imposed that the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 2,50,000/-for three years or, in the alternative, shall submit fixed-deposit receipt for the said amount, then he may be released on bail. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Judgment s of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 714 ; Keshab Narayan Banerjee & Another vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1985 Cr L.J. (S.C.) 1857: Ashok Dhingra vs. N.C.T. of Delhi reported in 2000 Cr. L.J. 4054; and Avinash Arora & Ors. vs. State of U.T.. Chandigarh & Anr., reported in 2000 (2) R. Cr.D 585 (S.C.). Relying upon the Judgment s cited by him, he argued that no such condition of furnishing the bank guaranty can be imposed by the Court. He emphasized upon observations of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another (Supra) holding as under:- “We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lacs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs. 2 lacs. If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to his legal remedies provided by law. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs. 2 lacs. If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to his legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police.” 4. Following the aforesaid Judgment , this petition is allowed and the impugned condition of furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-for three years or. in the alternative, to submit fixed-deposit receipt for the said amount stipulated by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in order dated 18.01.2006 is set aside. Rest of the order is maintained.